Talk:Visa requirements for Croatian citizens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia, Nicaragua, El Salvador[edit]

I'm sorry, but I had to write this message in Croatian.

Prekinite više stavljati Rusiju na popis, kao i to da nam za Nikaragvu i El Salvardor ne treba viza! Ne treba vjerovati Ministarstvu, već Timaticwebu jer se Timatic koristi u svim zračnim lukama i definitivno je bolji izvor informacija! A budući da se ne može u Rusiju tek tako, i da se vaučer ne može na granici dobiti, Rusija nema što raditi na popisu. A isti slučaj je i s Kubom koju napokon nitko ne spominje jer joj nije mjesto ovdje! 78.3.247.170 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa on arrival[edit]

Please do not add countries to this list which require you to obtain the in advance through a sponsor or otherwise and then physically stamp the visa into the passport on arrival. By that standard some of the most difficult countries in the world to get into like Bhutan, Libya or Saudi Arabia would be VOA and that is not what this list implies when listing visa-free and visa-on-arrival countries. Travelbird (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran, Rwanda[edit]

I also removed these as these do not require a simple internet registration but rather give you the option to apply online for a visa. In contrast to ESTA or eVisitor these applications aren't simply automatically checked against a database, but rather manually processed like any visa application and thus take significantly longer than a simple registration. Travelbird (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Islands[edit]

I have found conflicting sources about Visa requirements for Marshall Islands:
Croatian Ministry says 30 days: [1].
Marshall Islands Visitors Authority says 90 days: [2].
Timatic says visa is required: [3].

Does anyone know which one is correct? Merkhet (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timatic is shit

lowest ranking of all EU member states?[edit]

Article intro claim that "Croatian citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to 129 countries and territories, ranking the Croatian passport 26th in the world (lowest ranking of all EU member states)". I can not open the source but that at least should not be correct since there are 28 EU member states even if any non-EU state is not in the top 26.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking is not done per countries but per number of countries and territories accessible without a visa or visa on arrival. Not every ranking has a single country in it, for an example British, Swedish and Finnish passport holders have visa-free or visa on arrival access worthy of the best ranking which is 173 countries. Croatia indeed does not share its position with any other country, only Croatian passport holders have access to 129 countries. But it is still lower than the 21st ranking which is 141 countries and which is where Bulgaria and Romania are located. There are some 56 separate countries above Croatia, but this number is irrelevant.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the whole sentence is irrelevant, because that number has changed drastically since 2013. I believe that 141 has been reached already (but I have no source to prove it, just a simple count of the countries/territories listed on this page). That, coupled with the source that is unavailable (and its counting methodology can't be checked), should mean that the sentence should be removed or replaced with some more important/useful information.Merkhet (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a verifiable source for that please do share it with us. Until then, it's the annual report and the best we've got. Don't forget that the number doesn't change only for Croatian citizens, usually other countries like the UAE drop visas for all EU citizens in a single decision, which means the ranking of Bulgaria and Romania also changes in the same pace. Of course there are some countries that have previously dropped visas for EU citizens but haven't updated their policies yet for Croatia and are now slowly doing that, like Vanuatu or Belize, so yes, Croatian ranking will probably improve. But let's wait for the annual report to edit the article accordingly. As for the removal, dead links as per rules don't mean the information is supposed to be removed. Also, the methodology is explained in the report.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when I opened the tiamatic for Montserrat, it is written that

Visa required, except for Holders of a valid visa issued by a an EU Member State

And can you tell me, has someone informed them about the change that Croatia is an EU country? Thank you.

This also applies for Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos, Falkland Islands. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.197.151 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that data is correct. You can see it for Montserrat here in the official Montserrat source https://www.immigration.ms/countries/visa_required and for Turks and Caicos here http://www.turksandcaicostourism.com/entry-requirements.html Cayman Islands website doesn't work at the moment http://www.gov.ky/portal/page?_pageid=1142,1592726&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL As for the Falkland Islands Timatic lists Croatia as one of the countries whose citizens do not require a visa, but the Falkland Islands website doesn't (which is probably because they haven't updated it in a while).--Twofortnights (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

synthesis problem[edit]

The timaticweb.com links don't seem to talk in terms of reciprocities, they just state the facts for one direction of travel. To figure out that a treaty is violated, the reader has to infer it from two separate sources, only one of which is referenced. This is more generally a bit of a WP:NOTGUIDE violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can always make an issue and problem out of anything but the question is for what merit? There is no synthesis here, it's all black and white. The EU has mutual visa policies with certain states based on reciprocity and it's all clearly laid out in annual reciprocity reports by the EU. There is hardly anything to add to it to make it more clear. But sure, if you have a proposal how to solve this issue that you see with the article I am happy to listen.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have seen such a report cited in a secondary source, then reference that. That will make it clear that these claims are not a piece of original research. Perceived clarity doesn't necessarily make information suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bare links[edit]

You seem to be creating issues where they don't exist. For an example you just tried to re-add link rot maintenance template over subjective view that it's not enough despite the fact that the bare link definition - WP:BAREURLS - provided in the template itself clearly says "A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just the text out of the URL bar of your browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between the <ref> tags or simply provided as an external link, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation.". I don't think I can possibly satisfy you on way more vague issue of original research so I will just leave it as it is. Enjoy your day and inexplicable template tagging over other people's work, I am sure that's the "joy" part.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reference such as:
  • "Visa Information". IATA. Retrieved 27 June 2014.
... is practically useless. If and when the link goes dead, the reader who tries to verify this will stumble upon really simple issues: so the publisher was IATA, but what is "Visa Information" - a single web page about all visa information, a web page about some specific visa information, ...? When was the information originally published? Can it be found in some old IATA publication as opposed to a web site? Etc etc. That's why a mass change from truly bare links to this format - while clearly well-intentioned - is still essentially useless as a solution to the bare link problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joy [shallot], useless or not, it's NOT a bare link per WP:BAREURLS with which you keep tagging the article. But as I've said if tagging the article with a wrong tag gives you joy then I won't interfere, be joyous my friend. I've invested a lot of time into that article, and it would be nice if you've found something you don't like to actually try and fix it instead of adding those maintenance templates, but I guess we are not all here on the same mission. Some are here apparently just to stubbornly diminish work of others. Even if proven wrong.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the references in this article are "text out of the URL bar" without "any" other information then yes, you are right.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The point of policies isn't merely a blind implementation of their text, but an actual adherence to their spirit. The information that something is from IATA can probably already be surmised from the link URL. The date of last retrieval can be correlated with the date of the edit that added the link, available in page history. The reference title "Visa information", on an article called "Visa requirements", just isn't informative. The point of references is to provide actual useful meta data that will assist in verifiability.
And as I said before, even if we move past this issue, there still remain a number of other non-IATA bare links in the references that remain to be fixed.
The point of maintenance templates isn't to annoy you or anyone else, or to destroy articles, or to diminish anyone's work. It is to assist any editor willing to tackle the stated problem, and let readers know (if they care). You shouldn't take things so personally, otherwise it appears as if you think you own the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah great, now you will also try to convince me that we should read more into "just the text out of the URL bar". Just-the-text-out-of-the-URL-bar of your browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text. Yes that can have a plethora of meanings. And just to make sure that we interpret the WP:BAREURLS as widely and spiritually as possible, it says "without any of the usual information" with any in bold.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that we really should not haggle over the specific verbiage in an essay, I already explained this - if we're not giving people a decent citation, we're doing it wrong. In case we fix all the other bare links, and just the IATA references remain, you could replace this cleanup tag with {{citation style}} or {{format footnotes}}, but the same issue will remain, it would just be beating around the bush. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah why go into the verbiage of the essay. Perhaps we can tag this article with Template:Chinese script needed because hey who still bothers with what the template is actually about, we dislike something about the article, and then we add some maintenance template instead of the one that actually refers to the issue - fantastic.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please realize how ridiculous this sounds... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was the whole point, it's called irony. I am trying to explain to you how ridiculous it is to use a maintenance template that has nothing to do with this article. You are tagging it with a template that deals with bare URLs and this article suffers from bare URLs as much as it suffers from the lack of Chinese script.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 79 pure bare link refs right now. Even if I agree with you regarding the Timatic links (which I do not), you're were still removing a perfectly applicable cleanup tag. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the usage of Template:Timatic satisfactory to you? I have added it next to Afghanistan.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title is an improvement, and the mention of Timatic too, but now there's no longer any date in the reference...? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed {{Timatic}} to support date and accessdate parameters, please feel free to try. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, considering you are the one greatly concerned about the issue, maybe you can also try. I think it's proven that I have invested significant amount of time, energy and good will in this article so that I cannot be accused of any indecency.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's ever accused you of any indecency. Seriously. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

changed statues for Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos[edit]

According to the Tiamatic Croatian nationals do not require visa any more.

Also, for Montserrat there is a conflicting information, no need of a visa if visa issued by one of the EU countries. But Croatia IS an EU country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.157.8.235 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official portal of Montserrat for visas Croatian nationals require visas - [4]. According to Timatic Croatian citizens still require visas for Turks and Caicos Isl. True for Cayman.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Visa requirements for Croatian citizens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Visa requirements for Croatian citizens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements map[edit]

In all good efforts to unify Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, I believe this image should be changed to the way you see it now. Please, do not hesitate, if you have anything to claim, to do so. Any civil manners of reaching a consensus are well appreciated. Twofortnights, I would love to hear from you as well but also from others, seeing as how you are one of many people. Thank you for everything thus far!

  • Please, for organization purposes, begin here. Thank you!

Lifting on restrictions[edit]

I have reverted changes made by LukaRatic again, because they are false statements. "Restrictions for workers to be lifted starting from 1 July 2018" unequivocally informs that 2018 is the date of lifting restrictions, which, in many cases can be easily proven untrue. If you read references on the article that was linked to in the original edit - Freedom of movement for workers in the European Union, which I have added again - you will notice that United Kingdom has no intention to lift restrictions in 2018. Switzerland also plans to keep restrictions in place for as long as possible. The decision by each country (whether to extend transition period) is usually decreed only days before expiration of the ongoing period. --Merkhet (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Visa waiver Program -- Too early to change the page?[edit]

Hello, everyone,

Since Croatia will not be included into the VWP program until 1 Dec 2021, don't you think that it is too early to change the visa requirements for Croatian citizens to the United States? It might be potentially misleading to readers. They might believe that Croatian citizens could travel to the United States right now instead of two months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temptation115 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements map & Australia confusion[edit]

Can we stop reverting map to png where we only have one color, i.e. for visa and visa free?

I have created svg file since it is more logical. Green for visa free, ETA and visa on arrival. That is in accordance to the main table where we use green color for visa free.

I have chosen, red for visa, but also eVisa, eVisitor and visa online, logically, since we use that color in the table also.

Blue color is obviously for freedom of movement. Black is logical candidate for ban, not red, that might seem logival at first.

Even though every wikipedia page for visa requirement use different color sheme, we can use these two colors since they are quickly spotted on map. If we have only one shade of color, i.e. green, you cannot easily spot countries that require visa, or are visa free. Some users are regularly reverting the map to old one, i.e. shades of green. And some revert due to the fact that I chose Australia as not visa free. I have explained why is Australia not visa free, and Henley is also considering it as not visa free. Since we are using Henley as a standard here, it is logical to have Australia as not visa free. The decision of the European Commission ruling that the eVisitor's autogrant treatment is not an equivalent to the Schengen visa application procedures might have confused some people, who thought, "Ok this means visa free", but in reality if you wait days or months for autogrant as some people do, it is definetly not visa free. There is a reason why Australia has 2 visa schemes, one for West Europe, i.e. ETA, and one for East Europe, i.e. eVisitor. They treat us in the East as second class of EU. Unfortunately, politicians are not doing anything to change it.

If someone has a better idea for color scheme, please reply here, and also about Australia.Vardown (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 tables with country list[edit]

A few months ago I introduced a new section with 3 tables, and now 5. Other wikipedia pages don't have that section, so some users are not happy.

Here is my logic. When you are new on the page and you are wondering what countries Croatian citizens can travel, you don't want to read some long table with sources and explanations, which is basically a section with Full list of countries and visa requirements table. That's why I had an idea to collapse that table and also 2 more tables that I changed a little to be like other country pages, and I also collapsed them for better visibility.

Now these 5 tables stand out as a quick reference where you can travel visa free, and where you need a visa. Henley doesn't publish full list of countries like that so when something changes in visa programs, we can easily spot it.

Those of you who don't like it, we can delete it, but we should have some discussion about it. We want our page to be better than others, not just standard looking page, and even if we want a "standard" page, that should also evolve in time. Write your comments here, so we can come up with something.Vardown (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dickhead, EU Commission said it is not a visa, otherwise they'd take action against Australia as they threatened to do with US.... https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/default/files/e-library/documents/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy/docs/visa_policy_report_on_situation_of_non-reciprocity_en.pdf 212.228.61.134 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Visa requirements for Croatian citizens[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Visa requirements for Croatian citizens's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "index":

  • From Travel requirements for French citizens: "Compare Passports Power Passport Index 2022". passportindex.org. Retrieved 2 November 2022.
  • From Travel requirements for German citizens: "Compare Passports Power Passport Index 2022". passportindex.org. Retrieved 2 November 2022.
  • From Cabinet of Andrej Plenković I: "Pretužni Orešković predao vlast Plenkoviću: "Hrvatska ima sjajnu budućnosti" - Vijesti - Index.hr". index.hr. Retrieved 2016-10-20.
  • From 2012 Croatian European Union membership referendum: "Istraživanje: Birači sve neodlučniji, Josipoviću raste podrška, Kosoricu voli sve manje Hrvata - Vijesti.net". Index.hr. 5 May 2010. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  • From Kuwait: "Cultural developments in Kuwait". March 2013. Archived from the original on 24 February 2018. Retrieved 27 May 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia[edit]

Could you check the info for Croatian citizens with Namibia authorities? Croatia claims that its citizens can in fact get visa on arrival: https://mvep.gov.hr/services-for-citizens/consular-information-22802/visas-22807/visa-requirements-overview-22879/22879?country=195 Val5678678 (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visa_requirements_for_Croatian_citizens&oldid=1213989463"